W5: MBA Level - Writing Assignment

Article 1:

CASE: LUFTHANSA

Although fatal crashes are exceedingly rare in aviation—approximately one fatality for every 1.3 million flights—they're highly visible. They're also quite memorable in the minds of potential customers who have choices when making travel plans. Based on examinations of fatality records, incident reports, and audits from aviation associations and governments, Lufthansa Passenger Airlines has been rated as being among the world's top 10 airlines in terms of safety. Lufthansa's safety record is a function of several factors, but perhaps most important is the company's investment in flight crew training. Lufthansa's world class Flight Training subsidiary, with locations throughout Germany and in Phoenix, Arizona, is the most obvious example of this type of investment. Training delivered in these facilities ranges from basic pilot instruction to courses in the effective management of flight crews and their processes. The rationale for expenditures in flight crew training comes from knowledge that the vast majority of fatal airline accidents are due to the human limitations rather than random mechanical failures or fluke weather phenomena.

Unfortunately, on March 25, 2015, Germanwings Flight 9525, on route from Barcelona, Spain, to Dusseldorf, Germany, crashed in the French Alps, killing all 144 passengers and 6 crew members (two pilots and four flight attendants). Germanwings is a wholly owned subsidiary of Lufthansa and provides low-cost direct flights between European destinations. What is shocking about this particular incident is that one of the pilots crashed the plane intentionally. The 27 year-old co-pilot waited until the captain left the cockpit and locked the door so that the captain could not get back in. Recall that locks were installed on reinforced cockpit doors after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in 2001. The co-pilot then set the autopilot to 100ft, which initiated a descent that resulted in the Airbus A320 crashing into the mountains 10 minutes later.

Following the tragedy, Lufthansa CEO Carsten Spohr indicated that flight crews at Lufthansa and Germanwings are composed with great care and that pilots' are subjected to technical and psychological tests. He also noted that even with tough standards and safety regulations in place, it's impossible to rule out one-off events like this. Subsequent investigations of the crash have centered on two issues. First, the co-pilot had been treated for depression. Although he had apparently recovered and been cleared for flying, he remained troubled. This raises the question of whether someone on the flight crew should have detected something odd about the co-pilot's behavior and reported it. Second, the incident provides evidence that it's not a good idea to leave a single individual alone in a cockpit with complete responsibility and control of an aircraft carrying passengers. This has led to changes in policies that now require at least two members of the flight crew in the cockpit at all times. A complete explanation of the co-pilot's motives for this horrific tragedy may never come to light. However, the incident does highlight the fact that transporting passengers on an airliner requires a team effort.

Page 364

11.1	What type of team is a flight crew? What are the defining characteristics of a flight crew? What role did these characteristics play in the crash of Flight 9525?
11.2	How did the locking of the cockpit door change the nature of the flight crew's task? How did the change in policies after the crash address this issue?
11.3	How do the two models of team development apply to flight crews? Describe a model that better depicts how flight crews develop over time. How could the team development process be modified to help prevent incidents like this in the future?

Sources: S. Almasy and L. Smith-Spark, “Reports: Antidepressants Found at Home of Co-Pilot Andreas Lubitz,” CNN Online, March 28, 2015, http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/28/europe/france-germanwings-plane-crash-main/index.html; V. Bryan, “Lufthansa CE Stunned that Co-Pilot Apparently Crashed Plane,” Reuters, US Edition Online, March 26, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03026/us-france-crash-lufthansa-idUSKBN0MM1R520150326; K. Cripps, “What are the World's Safest Airlines?” CNN Online, January 6, 2015, http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/06/intl_travel/world-safest-airlines/?iid=EL; Lufthansa Corporate Website, “Passenger Airline Group,” 2015, http://www.lufthansagroup.com/en/company/business-segments/passenger-airline-group.html; R. L. Helmreich and H. C. Foushee, “Why CRM? Empirical and Theoretical Bases of Human Factor Training,” in B. Kanki, R. Helmreich, and J. Anca (Eds.), Crew Resource Management, 2nd ed. (San Francisco: Academic Press, 2010), pp. 3–57; “The World's Biggest Public Companies: #932 Deutsche Lufthansa,” Forbes Online, 2015, http://www.forbes.com/companies/deutsche-lufthansa/; and “What Happened on the Germanwings Flight,” The New York Times Online, March 27, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/24/world/europe/germanwings-plane-crash-map.html?_r=0.

Article 2:

CASE: NASA

NASA is planning a mission to send a crew of astronauts to Mars. Among other objectives, scientists are interested in the possibility of growing food in space, as there are now reasons to believe that Mars may be a good place to farm. Although this mission isn't scheduled until the year 2030 or so, NASA has already begun to explore how aspects of the mission are likely to impact the crew's ability to function effectively. You see, the crew of six to eight astronauts assigned to the mission will be living and working together in a noisy capsule about the size of an average kitchen for three years—it takes 6 months to get there, they'll stay for 18 months, and then there's the 6-month journey home. Given the constraints of their environment, and the fact that the crew will be working long hours under very demanding conditions, it's inevitable that they'll get on one another's nerves on occasion. There's literally no place to go to escape minor annoyances, and as frustration builds, the probability of emotional outbursts and interpersonal conflict increases.

Of course, it goes without saying that conflict among astronauts in a small space capsule millions of miles away from Earth is not a good thing. Astronauts who fail to fulfill a responsibility because they're preoccupied with conflict could put the mission, and the lives of the entire crew, in jeopardy, and this is true whether the conflict is bubbling beneath the surface or has risen to the surface. Hard feelings could hinder teamwork as well, and the failure to communicate an important piece of information or to provide help to a member of the crew in need of assistance, as examples, could also lead to disaster. Unfortunately, however, the duration and demands of the mission are almost without precedent, and therefore, the specific practices that need to be implemented to facilitate crew functioning in this context are unknown.

Page 400

To address this issue, NASA has awarded grants to psychologists to study teams that have to live and work together in isolated, confined, and extreme environments for extended periods of time. To help increase understanding of conflict and teamwork and how it can be better managed, the psychologists are working on technology that tracks the whereabouts of each crew member, as well as his or her vocal intensity and vital functions such as heart rate. This information would be used to pinpoint where and when conflict occurs and to understand how conflict influences subsequent crew interactions. The crew will be given feedback so they can learn how conflict hurts teamwork and cohesion. This feedback could also motivate crews to take the time to discuss teamwork issues and to devise ways to manage conflict and other process problems. Although it's impossible to anticipate all the potential issues that could arise on the mission to Mars, NASA believes that research on team process is necessary to enhance the viability and performance of the crew that is ultimately charged with the task.

12.1	Which team processes do you believe are most important to the crew of astronauts traveling to Mars? Why? Are there specific team processes you feel are relatively unimportant? Explain.
12.2	Describe additional types of information that could be collected by the psychologists to help crews better understand their interactions and how they influence crew effectiveness.
12.3	Discuss how team training could be used to build effective processes for the crew traveling to Mars.

Sources: T. Halvorson, “8 Score Astronaut Spots out of 6,300 NASA Applicants,” USA Today, June 18, 2013, http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2013/06/18/eight-score-astronaut-spots-nasa/2433565/; E. John and B. Taupin, Rocket Man (1972).,Universal Music Publishing Group; C. Moskowitz, "Farming on Mars? NASA Ponders for Supply for 2030 Mission,"  FoxNews.com . May 15, 2013, http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/05/15/farming-onmars-nasa/; NASA Website, “NASA History” (n.d.), http://history.nasa.gov (accessed July 8, 2013); A. Novotney, “I/O Psychology Goes to Mars,” Monitor on Psychology (March 2013), pp. 38–41; and R. Plushnick-Masti, “NASA Builds Menu for Planned Mars Mission in 2030s,” AP Online. July 17, 2012, http://bigstory.ap.org/article/nasa-builds-menu-planned-mars-mission-2030s.